[T]he key to human cooperation and concord has not depended on advances in the technologies of communication, but rather on how human beings go about using — or abusing — their technological tools.

Among the risks of our new communications world is its potential contribution to what I would call the growing “centrifugal forces” in our time — the forces of “fragmentation.” These forces, I believe, can threaten the coherence of democratic societies and the effectiveness of democratic institutions. Yes, the Information Revolution, for individuals and for communities, can be a great liberating influence. But it also carries some important risks.

More information at our fingertips can mean more knowledge and understanding. But it can also mean more fleeting attention-spans, more impulsive judgements, and more dependence on superficial snapshots of events. Communicating more often and more easily can bring people closer together, but it can also tempt us to live more of our lives inside smaller information bubbles, in more intense but often more isolated groupings. We see more people everywhere these days, standing or sitting or walking alone, absorbed in their hand-held screens. But, I wonder whether, in some larger sense, they are really more “in touch?” Greater “connectivity” does not necessarily mean greater “connection.”

Information travels more quickly, in greater quantities these days. But the incalculable multiplication of information can also mean more error, more exaggeration, more misinformation, more disinformation, more propaganda. The world may be right there on our laptops, but the truth about the world may be further and further away. The problem of fragmentation in our world is not a problem of diversity. Diversity itself should be a source of enrichment. The problem comes when diverse elements spin off on their own, when the bonds that connect us across our diversities begin to weaken.

Contents

Speech
 

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim.

President Paxson,
Ogden Family representatives,
Brown University Faculty, Students and Alumni,
Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen:

Thank you very much, Madame President, for your very kind introduction. It is a great honour for me to give the Ogden Lecture, to be included in the distinguished company of past Ogden Lecturers, and to pay tribute to the memory of Stephen Ogden.

I am also delighted to be present for the opening weekend of Brown’s 250th Anniversary, or one might say, the happy conclusion of Brown’s first quarter of a millennium!!

I have long felt a close sense of belonging at Brown; who is looking at me with intensity (1) my eldest son was a member of the Brown Class of 1995, and I treasure the fact that I received an honorary degree from Brown, and was privileged at that time to give the Baccalaureate Address.

Faith should deepen our concern for improving the quality of human life in all of its dimensions. That is the overarching objective of the Aga Khan Development Network …

My own education has blended Islamic and Western traditions. I was studying at Harvard some 56 years ago when I inherited the Ismaili Imamat. It is not a political role, as has been mentioned, but let me emphasise that Islamic belief sees the spiritual and material worlds as inextricably connected. Faith should deepen our concern for improving the quality of human life in all of its dimensions. That is the overarching objective of the Aga Khan Development Network, which President Paxson has described so well.

It has been said that giving an effective university lecture requires the boldness to make some strong predictions about the future. I might suggest that President Paxson has put me in a slightly embarrassing position today, by inviting me to return to speak on the Brown campus. The challenge with coming back to give a second such lecture is that you have to explain what you got wrong the first time!

As I look back, over some 18 years now, to 1996, I think I actually under-estimated how many things would change in the years ahead. If you were a student at Brown 18 years ago, you would not have had any Facebook friends and you wouldn’t be following anyone on Twitter. And, even more sadly perhaps, no one would be following you! There was no instant messaging at that time; indeed, as I recall, people actually used their telephones primarily for talking! In fact, email itself was still quite a new thing in 1996. And those are only the most obvious examples of transformative change in our world.

What has been the impact of such changes? We often think about technological innovation as a great source of hope for the world. We hear about how the Internet can reach out across boundaries, helping us all to stay in touch, and giving us access to information from every imaginable source.

But it is worth remembering that the same affirmations have greeted new communication technologies for centuries, from the printing press to the telegraph to television and radio. Yet in each case, while many hopes were fulfilled, many were also disappointed. In the final analysis, the key to human cooperation and concord has not depended on advances in the technologies of communication, but rather on how human beings go about using — or abusing — their technological tools.

Among the risks of our new communications world is its potential contribution to what I would call the growing “centrifugal forces” in our time — the forces of “fragmentation.” These forces, I believe, can threaten the coherence of democratic societies and the effectiveness of democratic institutions. Yes, the Information Revolution, for individuals and for communities, can be a great liberating influence. But it also carries some important risks.

More information at our fingertips can mean more knowledge and understanding. But it can also mean more fleeting attention-spans, more impulsive judgements, and more dependence on superficial snapshots of events. Communicating more often and more easily can bring people closer together, but it can also tempt us to live more of our lives inside smaller information bubbles, in more intense but often more isolated groupings. We see more people everywhere these days, standing or sitting or walking alone, absorbed in their hand-held screens. But, I wonder whether, in some larger sense, they are really more “in touch?” Greater “connectivity” does not necessarily mean greater “connection.”

Information travels more quickly, in greater quantities these days. But the incalculable multiplication of information can also mean more error, more exaggeration, more misinformation, more disinformation, more propaganda. The world may be right there on our laptops, but the truth about the world may be further and further away. The problem of fragmentation in our world is not a problem of diversity. Diversity itself should be a source of enrichment. The problem comes when diverse elements spin off on their own, when the bonds that connect us across our diversities begin to weaken.

As has often been said, we risk learning more and more, about less and less. And the result is that significant knowledge gaps can develop and persist. The danger is that knowledge gaps so often run the risk of becoming empathy gaps.

Too often, as the world grows more complex, the temptation for some is to shield themselves from complexity, we seek the comfort of our own simplicities, our own specialities. As has often been said, we risk learning more and more, about less and less. And the result is that significant knowledge gaps can develop and persist. The danger is that knowledge gaps so often run the risk of becoming empathy gaps. The struggle to remain empathetically open to the Other in a diversifying world is a continuing struggle of central importance for all of us.

The danger of having knowledge gaps grow into empathy gaps — that was the theme of my address in 1996. I discussed then what was becoming an enormous knowledge gap, nearly an ignorance gap, between the worlds of Islam and the non-Muslim world. Since that time, to be sure, there have been moments of encouraging progress on this front, including academic-centred efforts here at Brown, with your wonderful Digital Islamic Humanities Project.

But in many ways, that knowledge gap has worsened.

We have heard predictions for some years now about some inevitable clash of the industrial West with the Muslim world. These multiplied, of course, in the wake of the 9/11 tragedies and other violent episodes. But most Muslims don’t think that way; only an extreme minority does. For most of us, there is singularly little in our theology that would clash with the other Abrahamic faiths, with Christianity and Judaism. And there is much more in harmony. What has happened to the Islamic tradition that says that our best friends will be from the other Abrahamic Faiths, known as the “People of the Book”, all of whose faith builds on monotheistic revelation?

Of course, much of what the West has seen about the Muslim world in recent years has been through a media lens of instability and confrontation. What is highly abnormal in the Islamic world thus often gets mistaken for what is normal. But that is all the more reason for us to work from all directions to replace fearful ignorance with empathetic knowledge.

Down through many centuries, great Muslim cultures were built on the principle of inclusiveness. Some of the best minds and creative spirits from every corner of the world, independent of ethnic or religious identities, were brought together at great Muslim centres of learning. My own ancestors, the Fatimids, founded one of the world’s oldest universities, Al-Azhar in Cairo, over a thousand years ago. In fields of learning from mathematics to astronomy, from philosophy to medicine Muslim scholars sharpened the cutting edge of human knowledge. They were the equivalents of thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, Galileo and Newton. Yet their names are scarcely known in the West today. How many would recognise the name al-Khwarizmi — the Persian mathematician who developed some 1,200 years ago the algorithm, which is the foundation of search engine technology?

[(2) Impromptu remarks] I wondered, what would have happened if al-Khwarizmi had patented or copyrighted his algorithm?

And I tried to analyse what would be the consequences.

Well, the first consequence is that copyright lawyers around the world would either be billionaires or bust. Those who had broken the copyright would be billionaires, and the others, goodbye.

Secondly, the programmes probably would have been renamed. So if they had been renamed, either they would have Muslim names or they would keep their names. If they had Muslim names, they would be in Arabic or Turkish or Persian or Urdu and none of you would be able to pronounce those names. If the names were kept, then they would be printed in the developing world, and you know what it is like to print English in the developing world. So Twitter would have become Twit! Google would have become Giggle! And our good friend, Bill Gates, well … phtt (shrugging). That would be the end of Bill Gates.

But I can’t be serious all the time and sometimes like a good laugh, so I, on the other hand, must get back to serious matters because this is supposed to be a serious lecture.

In places like Pakistan and Malaysia, Iraq and Syria, Lebanon and Bahrain, Yemen and Somalia and Afghanistan, the Sunni-Shia conflict is becoming an absolute disaster.

In the Muslim world itself, as is true outside of it, much of our history, culture and art, has been obscured, and with it a clear sense of Muslim diversity. Among other “in-comprehensions” is the increasing conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims. In places like Pakistan and Malaysia, Iraq and Syria, Lebanon and Bahrain, Yemen and Somalia and Afghanistan, the Sunni-Shia conflict is becoming an absolute disaster.

The harsh truth is that religious hostility and intolerance, between as well as within religions, is contributing to violent crises and political impasse all across the world, in the Central African Republic, in South Sudan and Nigeria; in Myanmar, in the Philippines and in the Ukraine, and in many other places.

Such hostilities, of course, represent the most sinister side of what I have described as the centrifugal, fragmenting patterns of our times.

How can we respond to such tendencies? The response, I would emphasise today is a thoughtful, renewed commitment to the concept of pluralism and to the closely related potential of civil society.

A pluralist commitment is rooted in the essential unity of the human race. Does the Holy Qur’an not say that mankind is descended from “a single soul?” In an increasingly cosmopolitan world, it is essential that we live by a “cosmopolitan ethic,” one that addresses the age-old need to balance the particular and the universal, to honour both human rights and social duties, to advance personal freedom and to accept human responsibility.

It is in that spirit that we can nurture bonds of confidence across different peoples and unique individuals, welcoming the growing diversity of our world, even in matters of faith, as a gift of the Divine. Difference, in this context, can become an opportunity — not a threat — a blessing rather than a burden.

This brings us to the challenges for governance in our time. How do we organise our complex societies to achieve harmony and perhaps some progress, even at this time of growing diversity? These have always been difficult questions and they are not getting any easier. As you know, they were particularly difficult questions for the United States back in this university’s earliest years, as 13 former colonies tried to write a new national constitution.

George Washington, who had presided over the Constitutional Convention, came to this campus in 1790, after just one year as President, when Brown itself was only a quarter of a century old. He travelled to Providence to mark the recent adoption of the new US Constitution by the state of Rhode Island — the last of the original 13 states to do so. His visit was to celebrate the completion of that constitution-writing process. You may have known about this from reading the plaque that still hangs on the wall of University Hall, on the Brown Main Green, where Washington strolled that day with the university’s president.

I am told, incidentally, that Washington was greeted here with “the roar of cannons and the ringing of bells, and in a spirit of great decorum.” I don’t know about the cannon and the bells, but I must testify, as a current university guest, that the “great decorum” has not changed at all! Thank you!

Washington’s visit in Providence marked a moment of historic constitutional significance. And the questions we have raised today, balancing centrifugal, fragmenting realities on the one hand with the imperatives of national bonding and governing on the other, were central concerns for Washington at that moment and throughout his career. After eight years of coping with these issues as the first American president, he made them the major theme of his famous Farewell Address.

[George Washington] was worried, principally, he said then, about what he called the spirit of “faction” … He described faction as a spirit, that “kindles the animosity of one part against another,” creating a “fatal tendency to elevate a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community” against the whole.

He was worried, principally, he said then, about what he called the spirit of “faction” and its ability to undermine a sense of democratic nationhood. He described faction as a spirit, that “kindles the animosity of one part against another,” creating a “fatal tendency to elevate a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community” against the whole. It threatened, he said, “a frightful despotism”, one that could “render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together …” Such threats to bonding, and thus to balance, have long presented a central governance challenge, here and elsewhere. And these issues are now being addressed with new intensity all across the world.

Amazing as it may seem, fully 37 countries have been writing or rewriting their constitutions in the last ten years, with another 12 countries recently embarking on this path. This means that nearly 25 per cent of the member countries of the United Nations have been rethinking these central governance concerns. And nearly half of these 49 countries have majority Muslim populations.

Clearly, many Muslim societies are seeking new ways to organise themselves. And there can be no “one size fits all”. The outcomes obviously are going to be many and varied. The process will challenge the creativity of the world’s best political and legal thinkers. Especially in the developing world, such matters will increasingly be in the hands of younger, more educated men and women, provided the system allows them to come to the forefront.

These governance issues are frankly today, of global concern. And I believe that the great universities of the world and Brown University in particular, can also play an especially creative role in responding to them. The challenge, as we have said, will be one of balancing values and interests, honouring the importance of religious and ethical traditions, for example, while also respecting the free will of individual human beings; accommodating both the role of central governments and regional demands, reconciling the urban and the rural; providing for democratic change, and institutional continuity.

Creating new governance frameworks is obviously not an easy task. But it can be accomplished. In Kenya just three and a half years ago, for example, a new constitution ratified by two- thirds of the voters, redistributed power dramatically from the central level to 47 county governments. In Tunisia, just a few weeks ago, a new “consensus” constitution with 94 per cent approval from the elected Constituent Assembly reaffirmed the Islamic identity of the Tunisian state, while also protecting the human rights of religious and ethnic minorities.

In these cases, and in other places such as Bangladesh, one of the fundamental constructive forces at work has been the strength of civil society, it is a topic that is worth serious attention. And, I am happy to say, that it has been getting increasing attention, including the exemplary, cutting-edge work here at Brown of the Watson Institute for International Studies.

By civil society I mean an array of institutions that operate on a private, voluntary basis, but are motivated by high public purposes. They include institutions devoted to culture, to science and to research; to commercial, labour, ethnic and religious concerns; as well as a variety of professional societies. They include institutions of the media and education.

A quality civil society has three critical underpinnings: a commitment to pluralism, an open door to meritocracy, and a full embrace of what I described earlier as a cosmopolitan ethic.

I think the conclusion is the success of democratic societies will depend in the end on more than democratic governments. The scale and the quality of civil society will become a factor, I believe, of enormous importance. A quality civil society has three critical underpinnings: a commitment to pluralism, an open door to meritocracy, and a full embrace of what I described earlier as a cosmopolitan ethic.

The voices of civil society will reflect and express the growing complexity of society, not as autonomous fragments, but as diversified institutions seeking the common good. And I believe that the voices of civil society can be among the most powerful forces in our time. Where change has been overdue, they can be voices for change. Where people live in fear, they can be voices of hope.

One of the energising forces that makes a quality civil society possible, of course, is the readiness of its citizens to contribute their talents and energies to the social good. What is required is a profound spirit of voluntary service, a principle cherished in Shia Ismaili culture, and honoured, I know, here at Brown.

Progress is possible when the multiple, diversified needs of any society can be matched by multiple, diversified inputs; that is also what civil society is all about. This is why great universities, with their broad, diversified programmes, can be a resource of importance in the development of quality civil society, in their own countries but also around the world. And again, Brown offers a powerful example.

Perhaps the biggest quandary we face in our economic and social development programmes is the problem of “predictability” …

Perhaps the biggest quandary we face in our economic and social development programmes is the problem of “predictability”; knowing what changes are going to arise, and then deciding what is more or less likely to work in a given situation. But again, progress is possible when complex issues are subjected to competent, intelligent, nuanced and sophisticated analysis, free from dogmatism, and based upon what I would describe as “empathetic knowledge.” This happens best in open, meritocratic societies, where people’s responsibilities are based on their competence. It also happens best when the intellectual resources of the world’s great universities, like Brown, are brought into play.

One of the important values of the Shia Ismaili tradition is the transformative power of the human intellect — that conviction underscores AKDN’s strong commitment to education, at all levels, wherever we are present. These activities include the Aga Khan University — now thirty years old — our newer University of Central Asia, our Aga Khan Academies at the primary and secondary levels, and our major commitment to the potential of Early Childhood Development.

The Aga Khan University in Karachi and East Africa is in the process today of creating a new Liberal Arts faculty, while also establishing eight new post-graduate schools. I would emphasise both these initiatives. Professional education is sorely needed in the developing world, but equally important is the capacity to integrate knowledge, to nurture critical thinking and ethical sensitivity and to advance interdisciplinary teaching and research.

A quality civil society, in any setting, will require well-informed leaders who are sensitive to a wide array of disciplines, and outlooks and cultures. It will require people with the ability to continue their learning in response to new knowledge. I know these are central concerns for Brown University, articulated so well in its new Strategic Plan and its call for “Building on Distinction.”

Diversification without disintegration, this is the greatest challenge of our time.

As we look ahead, in sum, we face a world in which centrifugal and fragmenting influences are of growing importance, presenting new governance challenges all across the planet, and especially in fragile societies. In such a world, the voices of pluralistic civil society can help ensure that diversity does not lead to disintegration, and that a broad variety of energies and talents can be enlisted in the quest for human progress. Diversification without disintegration, this is the greatest challenge of our time.

Over the past six decades I have been immersed in the problems of developing societies, grappling with ways to assist their populations, despite both natural hazards and human errors. It is my conviction that a strong, high-quality, ethical and competent civil society is one of the greatest forces we can work with to underwrite such progress. And, if this is correct, then the role of great universities has never been more important.

I am convinced that Brown will be among the greatest universities stepping up to this challenge, as it finishes its first 250 years, and embarks on its next quarter of a millennium!

Thank you.

His Highness the Aga Khan IV

Apres lecture conversation with Christina Paxson
 

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Christina Paxson: Your Highness, thank you so much for a wonderful talk. And it’s just such a privilege to have you back at Brown again, and with your family and your colleagues and it’s just a real privilege. So thank you very much.

His Highness the Aga Khan: Thank you, President.

CP: We have structured this part of this event really as a conversation. Before you came we canvased some members of the Brown community. We put together some questions that people might have for you, and I hope we can discuss some of the answers.

AK: I’ll do the best I can.

CP: OK. So, one broad question. You are global leader. Your institutions address a broad range of themes: education, healthcare, the built environment, culture, enterprise development. Can you help us understand how this very broad ranging work links to the ethics of Islam? And, I’ve also heard you talk about “quality of life.” How do those things relate?

[I]n Islam, faith and world are not separate. We have a dual level of answerability: to faith and world…. [Y]ou have to be effective in your material life as well as [an] honest believer.

AK: Well I think it relates to, first of all, the notion that in Islam, faith and world are not separate. We have a dual level of answerability: to faith and world. And, in fact, my interpretation says that you cannot abandon one for the other. You have to be rigorous in both. And, therefore, if that’s the case, you have to be effective in your material life as well as [an] honest believer.

I think the second thing is that, in Islam, there is a notion of entrustment — I can’t find the right word. But essentially, the faith says God has given His creation of the world to humankind to better. And, the principle is you leave life, having left the world better than it was when you were born into it. So you don’t divorce yourself from real life. You seek to improve it and to leave it to others in a better state.

CP: Thank you. So I would like to ask you a little bit more about the Aga Khan Development Network, which you’ve put so much effort into and has such an important impact on people all around the globe. How can the Aga Khan Development Network best help fuel stronger economic development and civil society in the nations where it’s had extensive operations? And, I’d guess I’d really be interested to know, how your approach has changed over time? Are you doing things differently than you were 16 years ago?

AK: Right, right. Well, I think we start like any organisation by living within the context of individual countries, regions, or whatever it may be. So, absolutely, there has been massive change since 1957. If you go back in your memories, you’ll recollect how much of Africa and Asia was under colonial rule, the Cold War was still in place, and there were all the difficulties of, lets say, decolonisation, new economic theories being tested in developing countries. This was a very, very difficult time. So yes, that’s changed. And it’s changed massively because, I think, there is new pragmatism in the way people and governments look at their future. (Emphasis original)

How can AKDN contribute? Well, I think, first of all, is a careful analysis of what each country, each region, is looking at. And you cannot compare Africa with Central Asia, and so and so forth, so you’re actually country specific, or region specific. Secondly we’re looking at what I would call gaps or planning errors. And I would give you situations such as in Kenya when they decided that the whole of the country would have free primary education, but then didn’t look at the consequences on secondary and tertiary education. These are the sorts of issues. I think the third one, is to look at areas that are characteristically underprivileged. I would give you northern Mali, as a typical case. I would give you north-west Pakistan, as another typical case. These are all areas of extreme risk, extreme poverty. That’s not something we want to live with. (Emphasis original)

CP: No, we couldn’t. Can you tell us a little bit, specifically, about the work you’ve done to improve population health?

[I]f you speak to most of the governments in the developing world, of Asia and Africa today, they are particularly unhappy about the cost of non-communicable disease. It has become a major factor. (Emphasis original)

AK: I think we’ve observed in the developing world a big change in health threat. And, if you speak to most of the governments in the developing world, of Asia and Africa today, they are particularly unhappy about the cost of non-communicable disease. It has become a major factor. So we have decided, first of all, to concentrate on trying to respond to that, which means hospital based tertiary care. The second thing we’re trying to do is to use technology to link the rural, isolated areas to our urban networks. So, for example, in Afghanistan we’re looking at the whole of Central Asia. In East Africa, we’re looking at the region of East Africa. We’re trying to build a system which is compatible with the government. It’s not in competition but it’s bringing private sector healthcare in addition to public sector. That’s the goal. (Emphasis original)

CP: Right. One of our faculty members recently returned from a trip to Eldoret, in Kenya, and she saw the Aga Khan Hospital there and she was hoping that you could say a little bit more about what you’ll be doing in building medical infrastructure in the next 10 years.

AK: Right. Well as I said, we’re trying to do two things — well actually, three things. First of all, we’re trying to get tertiary care and education in situations such as Nairobi, Mumbai, Dar es Salaam, Karachi, Kabul, etc. Then we’re trying to link provincial hospitals into that system. And then we’re trying to link rural units into the system again. So that’s the goal that we have. And we want to do it with partners.

CP: Right. That’s wonderful. So it’s really building systems of care.

AK: It’s building a system.

CP: Right.

AK: And, in fact, it goes further than just one country. We’re looking at East Africa as a region. We’re looking at Central Asia as a region. It’s much quicker to get from Tajikistan into northern Afghanistan — or rather the other way, northern Afghanistan into Tajikistan — for healthcare, then if you have to go down to Kabul, for example.

CP: Right. So lets turn a little bit to education, and the Aga Khan Development Network has done so much wonderful work in education. You’ve spoken a lot about the importance of higher education and continuing eduction. Could you say a little bit about what you’re doing in those areas?

AK: First of all, I was fortunate to be able to create the first private sector university in Pakistan, which is the Aga Khan University. That university has a mandate to function within Pakistan but [also] in other areas of the world. So we’re now working in Eastern Africa. The second issue we looked at, was the high mountain areas of Central Asia and we discovered that there was no solid institution of higher learning dealing with about 25 million people who live in Central Asia, in the mountain areas. So we decided that we needed a university in that part of the world. So we’re trying to create academic hubs which then will draw people from the primary and secondary, and early childhood, into the whole system. We’re trying to introduce international quality — so the IB will become the standard exam for us, worldwide. And we’re trying teach people in the national language and in the global language of English, so that all the students who come through the system have an international level of education and have language capability.

CP: And this is in the sciences as well as the humanities?

AK: In the sciences, in the humanities, the whole spectrum.

CP: Right. That’s wonderful. Really good. So this is a question that I think that affects many development organisations, which is, you do wonderful things [but] how do you know that you are making a difference? How do you measure the impact of what you do?

So the goal is to create a system which is responsive to peoples own views, not what you think their views are. (Emphasis original)

AK: Right. Right. We are not fascinated by mathematics and statistics. So we’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand how people in various environments judge their quality of life. So we have first of all been able to bring together quality of life indicators from different parts of the world which tell us how those populations look at their future. So we start with the quality of life indicators, and we measure where we are when we start. And then we put in a program. We measure its outcome. We correct. We runaway — sometimes — and that’s not always our fault, eh, … I have to tell you. But we actually stay as long as we can in the most difficult environments. So, for example, we’re in Syria, we’re in Afghanistan, we’re in a lot of countries because we are permanently there. So the goal is to create a system which is responsive to peoples own views, not what you think their views are. (Emphasis original)

CP: Right. That’s very interesting. So, you mentioned Syria, and not leaving … more generally, you work in so many different countries of the world, how have events such as terrorism, political instability, how do they affect your operations? Do you foresee moving out of regions or staying in regions? How do you deal with that?

AK: In most cases we’re dealing with populations of those countries so, as far we can tell, most Syrians do not wish to leave Syria. That’s not the same thing as an ethnic minority. In the case of Uganda, for example, where Idi Amin decided that all the Asians, no matter where they came from, what was their nationality, what was their faith … they all had to leave. So it’s a case by case situation.

CP: Right. Right. So I want to turn, a little bit, to higher education in the United States, at places like Brown — you were very gracious in your remarks talking about Brown University. One thing you know is that many people in the US have a very limited understanding of the culture of Islam, and the question is what can universities do to remedy this lack of understanding? You think about introducing Islamic art and architecture and humanistic scholarship. How do you see introducing those in the West and supporting that?

AK: Well I’ve done some work, obviously, with American universities. I have a programme of architecture at Harvard and MIT. We have a programme here at Brown. So we’re working with individual US universities and Canadian universities. We’re also opening an Aga Khan Museum, in Toronto, I hope by the end of the year, which will be the first museum entirely dedicated to the arts of Islam.

CP: That’s wonderful.

[T]he basic goal is to make the civilisations of Islam part of global knowledge. That’s really the most important thing.

AK: So that’s going to be important. And we’re looking about bridging universities with our own universities, across frontiers, with faculty and students, etc. And the basic goal is to make the civilisations of Islam part of global knowledge. That’s really the most important thing.

CP: Right. Well I’m glad we can participate in that and that we have. It’s been a good partnership. So, more broadly, what role do you see for Brown and other research universities in America and in improving the quality of life in the developing world? I mean you’re doing so much, what can universities do to improve the quality of life in developing countries?

AK: (Chuckles)

CP: It’s a big question, I know.

AK: That’s asking what I’m going to ask you to do in the future.

CP: OK. (Laughing) Fair enough.

And, just as you pinched Plato, from Arabic, (mischievous grin) so we intend to pinch knowledge from you today.

AK: Joking apart. Your universities have carried forward a long tradition of concentration of research and knowledge and it’s not a part of Western civilisation only — it’s been part of Islamic civilisation for centuries and centuries also. But as your world has become more developed — economically more powerful — you have concentrated more knowledge, more research in the West, than we have been able to do elsewhere. And, just as you pinched Plato, from Arabic, (mischievous grin) so we intend to pinch knowledge from you today.

CP: Fair enough. Very good. (Laughing)

AK: So, I think there are two goals. One is, first of all, to gain in knowledge but also to reposition our human capacities so that we are able to compete — and I don’t like the word compete — but function more … more constructively in the world.

CP: Good. So we have time for one final question, and this is a broad one. We have many students in the audience, they’re looking forward to making a difference in the world — that’s a very distinctive feature of Brown — so you get to give them advice.

AK: (Laughs).

CP: And, what advice, seriously, would you give them about shaping the futures and their children’s futures?

AK: Difficult question.

CP: Yes.

Well I think I would start by saying, something very basic. First of all, what language do you speak? Do you speak one or do you speak several languages? … The third thing I would ask is, do you want to be a global citizen or do you want to be a continental citizen?

AK: Well I think I would start by saying, something very basic. First of all, what language do you speak? Do you speak one or do you speak several languages? If you speak several languages, your horizons are wider. You can function in a wider number of countries around the world. I think the second thing that I would say, is I would ask them to think about where they want to be when they’re 35. What are the goals for their midterm? I think that’s the second thing that I would ask. The third thing I would ask is, do you want to be a global citizen or do you want to be a continental citizen? If you want to be a global citizen, then prepare yourself for that. It’s a different set of goals. So I think the whole issue is a rational issue that well educated children, young people, can address in a very, very rational way. And I think the final thing that I would say, is everybody makes mistakes. Never regret them, but correct them. But there’s no such thing as a perfect world or a perfect life.

CP: Very good advice.

AK: Thank you.

CP: Thank you very much.

AK: Thank you.

NOTES

  1. A this point in his speech, the Aga Khan made the impromptu remark “who is looking at me with intensity” which is present in the audio and video but was not included in the transcript of his speech released on akdn.org.
  2. At this point in his speech, the Aga Khan made several impromptu jokes about copyright which are present in the audio and video but were not included in the transcript of his speech released on akdn.org

SOURCES

POSSIBLY RELATED READINGS (GENERATED AUTOMATICALLY)